"Kingdom of Heaven" Director's Cut

This may very well be my favorite movie of all time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0320661/

"Braveheart"

This was the first time in watching "Braveheart" that I felt like the movie was dated. Now, this could be due to the fact that of the movies I watched surrounding it, it is the oldest of them, plus it was the one I watched on DVD as opposed to the others being on Blu-ray. But despite the dated feel and look of it, it did not take away from how great of a movie it is. Sure, the story itself when you think about it may be pretty much Hollywood cliche, but it still doesn't take away from the caliber of filmmaking that is involved. Mel Gibson as William Wallace may not be the best (he himself said that he thought he was a decade too old to play the part), but he's definitely not bad and those surrounding him are definitely good. And Mel Gibson as director does a fantastic job with these characters and the story. I just hope that it hasn't reached that point in time where it's old enough to feel dated, but not old enough to be considered dated and therefore understanding of the dated feel because it's an older movie. Either way, you can't help but respect the quality film that "Braveheart" is.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112573/

"The Last Samurai"

There is very little that I don't like about this movie. I'm not a huge Tom Cruise fan, but I think he's great in this as the troubled American soldier. I love the captivating story that we follow of this man trying to find peace in his life. I love the journey we experience with him and I feel the emotions he feels as I watch his story on the screen. I love how in the scope of the greater story and action going on around Tom Cruise's character, we never lose the focus on him and the emotional state that he is in. Ken Watanabe makes for a perfect counter-part to Tom Cruise and their onscreen interaction and chemistry is great to watch. One thing that I do not like is the unimaginative and uninspiring cinematography. Not that I'm an expert on the subject, but for the most part, the cinematography was simply serviceable. It did what it was suposed to do in taking us along this cinematic journey. There were spots where it was inspiring and causes awe in the craftsmanship involved in creating the image we experience, but for the most part it just did an adequate job. But this lack, at least for me, is made up for in the overall experience and emotional journey I feel when watching this film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325710/

"Gladiator" Extended Edition

This movie is just as good today as it was when it was first released! One thing that stuck out to me was the high level of acting from the supporting cast. Joaquin Phoenix was fantastic making his incestual feelings for his sister even creepier than the concept already is (did he really lose "best Supporting Actor? Really?). Connie Nielsen was easily overlooked for her performance despite her command of the screen every time she showed up. And Oliver Reed and Proximo was simply amazing. All of these performances definitely bolstered Russell Crowe's already good performance and make for extremely watchable characters on screen that elicit emotion from you. My one complaint is the over-use of the zoom with the cinematography. It's one thing to use it, that's fine, you can do that, there is definitely time and place for it. But it's another thing when it's over-used and becomes noticeable and distracting, and it was slightly over-used. This also marked the first time that I watched the extended cut (which Ridley Scott points out is an extended cut, not his, the director's, cut of the film). Whilst there was some fun and good back story of things going on and may make some things more understandable, it didn't add anything amazing or essential to the film. It was fun to see and I would recommend to anyone who likes this film to see the extended cut. Outside of all that, this movie is a demonstration of why Ridley Scott is one of the best directors we have the fortune of experiencing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/

Crips and Bloods: Made in America

For being a documentary, this film was a lot more entertaining than it was informing. It was interesting to see the connection between the rise of gangs in Los Angeles with the 1965 Los Angeles riot (or rebellion) even if the connection wasn't the strongest. It was also interesting to see a wide variety of people in gangs, their experiences being a part of or living in the area of gangs, and their current situation in life (especially comparing those who are still members and those who have moved on to other of life's opportunities). Perhaps the biggest frustration in watching this movie (and remember that this is coming from the point of view of a caucasian male who has been afforded every opportunity one could ask for in life) was the constant blaming of society, and for the poor conditions these young people find themselves in having "no choice," for the creation and perpetuation of gangs and criminal activity involved with it. Whilst I understand being a victim of circumstance and easily falling prey to your environment, you, as a person, has the gift and ability of choice. True, sometimes your choices can be limited, but your ability to choose cannot. You have the ability to choose not to engage in that activity. I understand that your choice to not engage in such activity can lead to extreme hardships for you and your family. The point is, it is still your choice. You can make your current condition better, for you and for your family. It may be difficult and seem impossible, but you can. Now, would I say that if I was in the same position of these individuals? Would I choose differently than these young men had? I don't know. It's easy for me to say this from the comfort of my life. One last point that I really liked was the difference that the role of fathers and family make. These were individuals who understood that they were missing a father (or often times even any adult) figure growing up, most understood that they did not want their children to be missing that same figurehead. Overall I enjoyed watching the movie, even if it was mostly people sharing their experiences that weren't necessarily informative. But by the time the credits rolled and the website was shown, I was ready to pick up and move to Los Angeles to help. I'm just not sure my above opinion would be welcome or helpful. Anyone want to come with me?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0479044/

"This Film Is Not Yet Rated"

Let me first say that the idea of this movie and the driving principle behind its intent is one I agree with. The execution was not that great. The biggest problem with this movie is that they mixed filmmakers opinions with the MPAA specifically (which the movie purports to be about) and their opinions of ratings in general, which they liked to call censorship and like to complain about. They try to play this as an exposé on the ratings system as a whole, but really it's about the R rating versus the NC-17 rating and sex versus violence. However, the parts that were on topic were very good in pointing out the inconsistent and ill-defined nature of the Motion Picture Association of America, how they rate films, who rates films, and the appeal process for films' ratings. Their seeking out of raters may have gone a bit too far (good job blurring out the license plate numbers whilst reading them out-loud on screen) when they hired a private investigator, and then plastered their faces on the screen as if these people were the villains (good job pointing out that one of the raters is a Republican whilst not revealing any other raters political persuasion). But it did show falsities in the MPAA's claim of who the raters are. And whilst the movie does well in pointing out the problems with the MPAA, they offer absolutely no solution or possible solution in response to their complaint with the MPAA.  I would be interested to know what this film would look like and what these filmmakers would say if there was more structure and less ambiguity with the MPAA and its system but still the same level of "censorship." Now it's time for my rant on this movie. It's hard not to look at this film as Hollywood liberal propaganda. And just because it's art, realistic, can be found on the internet, and/or has been seen before by someone elsewhere, does not excuse it to be seen by the general public of any or all ages in theaters. But at least they interviewed an attorney who specializes in 1st Amendment rights who works solely with filmmakers to come use big words to convince us of the evils of this modern day censorship we call the MPAA. Now, I believe I'm on the conservative side of the spectrum, but I do watch R rated movies on occasion, I have seen even more objectionable material before, my favorite television show right now is "Game of Thrones" on HBO which is full of sex, violence, nudity, and inappropriate language, but that is my choice. I know what is in these forms of entertainment. I believe that some sort of rating system is necessary. It is a tool that people can use to decide what they want to allow themselves and those they hold responsibility over (ie, their children) to watch and let into their lives. I also believe that the MPAA could use some fixing, assuming this film is accurate in its depiction of the system used by the MPAA. If we're going to rate these movies, we need more behind it than a small group of unknown, unqualified individuals that are touted as "regular, everyday parents with children between the ages of 5 and 17." Why not a qualified board containing filmmakers, psychologists, doctors, law enforcement agencies, a variety of religious leaders, and regular parents? If we have a board of 9 everyday people rating all our movies, why can't we get a few people from each of these areas to do it for us, to bring their expertise to the rating system, to develop a more concrete system of why a movie is rated what it is. And perhaps ratings need to be replaced with not necessarily a rating of the content, but a description of the content. But even then, you need a short way of describing that content, which the rating is supposed to provide. I'm not sure what the answer is to the modern day rating system. In all honesty, I'm fine with it, simply because I'll research a film's or show's content before I watch it if I have questions about it. But if the MPAA truly wants to be an effective tool for people and parents, then they need to be more systematic and concrete in their approach. This movie did point that out, it was just surrounded by a lot of unnecessary noise that was used instead of further exploring the problem of the MPAA and a possible solution for it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/

"True Grit" (2010)

When I first saw "True Grit" when it was released, I must admit that I was confused. All the trailers and commercials portrayed it to be this dark, gritty* western, which it wasn't. Having now watched it for a second time years later and after having seen the 1969 John Wayne version, I can say that this movie is amazingly good. Everything that is good about the 1969 version (and there is a lot good about it) is improved on in this film. Jeff Bridges is a little too over the top as "Rooster" Cogburn, but his "too much" is better than John Wayne's "too little." Mattie is played perfectly as a sassy, know-it-all who gets her way by being stubborn that you can't help but be annoyingly pleased. Matt Damon as LaBoeuf is hilarious in his ineptness and Texas arrogance. The dichotomy that the Coen brothers craft between a very gritty** looking western story and humorous characters and dialogue is fabulous. This unique combination suits them very well. One element that sets this movie truly above the 1969 version is the emotion it elicits. The opening scene and monologue carry just as much story and so much more emotion than the opening 10 minutes of the earlier version. Just like John Wayne riding against Ned Pepper and his gang, Jeff Bridges riding against them is just as great (if not better). But when we are drawn into Jeff Bridges racing Mattie to safety afterwards, we all but forget that showdown in favor of the less exciting, but ultimately more emotional journey. Aided by a great script, memorable secondary and even tertiary characters, and talented filmmakers in the Coen brothers, "True Grit" is a spectacular movie.

*Gritty! Get it?

**Gritty! Get it?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1403865/